Why Arguing Religion is Pointless

[charlatan]

[MENTION=12656]Elegant Winter[/MENTION] I definitely think people's psyches are a huge part of what they latch onto, yes. From my perspective, though, there's 2 very different types of roles religion fulfills....one is in your typical common person looking to be socially acceptable, and the other is in the truly out there, eccentric seeker. The former doesn't necessarily even want to really know what religion is -- they just want to fit into what's considered the in thing, and no I'm not trying to be derogatory, plenty of down to earth people like this are nice, well meaning people, and one can appreciate them for those things. The latter, yes, is probably going to be a seeker of the spiritual and so on any way you slice it.

So the question really is, why does the former "need" something like religion to fulfill their particular need? I think if anything a lot of those people are very SJ-ish people, authority and duty-seeking, and if there's anything that appeals to them about religious life/God, it's probably that there's a concept of a higher authority telling you how to live a respectable life.

I would imagine there's no need to spiritualize that higher authority figure and one could just as well make it a more human, less spirit-based ethical code, and leave the spirit-based stuff to the people I think who really can't do without it.
I actually don't tend to object to the more out there spiritual figures, because they know their message is out there, and they know they are out there, and they accept that. It is the turning of spiritual ideals into pragmaticist format that I tend to find becomes frustrating....sort of mass-manufacturing something that is a highly inner explorative path and turning it into a way of pragmatic life. A lot of these people, like I said, just go with it because it's the in thing, and don't really even know their own religions or ask the big questions about it.

Don't get me wrong, I fully think that *humanity as a whole* will probably not get rid of religion for a long time/forever perhaps because yes it fulfills a certain deeper need. It's highly psychological. I just don't think the common person really is following religion for such intensely introspective or meaning-seeking reasons, so a part of me thinks the role religion is playing in these people's lives could be fulfilled by something more benign. Yes like you say, it could be less benign too, but that's the whole point---it's kind of arbitrary what it is, and the only hope we have is to try to ensure that it's something reasonable.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

@Elegant Winter I definitely think people's psyches are a huge part of what they latch onto, yes. From my perspective, though, there's 2 very different types of roles religion fulfills....one is in your typical common person looking to be socially acceptable, and the other is in the truly out there, eccentric seeker. The former doesn't necessarily even want to really know what religion is -- they just want to fit into what's considered the in thing, and no I'm not trying to be derogatory, plenty of down to earth people like this are nice, well meaning people, and one can appreciate them for those things. The latter, yes, is probably going to be a seeker of the spiritual and so on any way you slice it.

So the question really is, why does the former "need" something like religion to fulfill their particular need? I think if anything a lot of those people are very SJ-ish people, authority and duty-seeking, and if there's anything that appeals to them about religious life/God, it's probably that there's a concept of a higher authority telling you how to live a respectable life.

I would imagine there's no need to spiritualize that higher authority figure and one could just as well make it a more human, less spirit-based ethical code, and leave the spirit-based stuff to the people I think who really can't do without it.
I actually don't tend to object to the more out there spiritual figures, because they know their message is out there, and they know they are out there, and they accept that. It is the turning of spiritual ideals into pragmaticist format that I tend to find becomes frustrating....sort of mass-manufacturing something that is a highly inner explorative path and turning it into a way of pragmatic life. A lot of these people, like I said, just go with it because it's the in thing, and don't really even know their own religions or ask the big questions about it.

Don't get me wrong, I fully think that *humanity as a whole* will probably not get rid of religion for a long time/forever perhaps because yes it fulfills a certain deeper need. It's highly psychological. I just don't think the common person really is following religion for such intensely introspective or meaning-seeking reasons, so a part of me thinks the role religion is playing in these people's lives could be fulfilled by something more benign. Yes like you say, it could be less benign too, but that's the whole point---it's kind of arbitrary what it is, and the only hope we have is to try to ensure that it's something reasonable.

In short, some people are religious out of insecurity, and some people are religious out of curiosity?

 

[charlatan]

Yes, although I'd add to insecurity more E1-ish things (I assume you're familiar with enneagram, roughly yes some of the 1st category are more 6-ish and some more 1-ish reasoning).
Meaning, seeking authority not out of insecurity, but rather a certain disciplinarian attitude, a need to find an ideal of "properness" and so on. The sorts of people who'd probably find something else to be stickler about even if it weren't religion.

And the gist of my point is I don't think one is doing any favors to the first category by offering religion as a way of life to them. I think the latter category can at times be OK.

 

[Elegant Winter]

[MENTION=12656]Elegant Winter[/MENTION] I definitely think people's psyches are a huge part of what they latch onto, yes. From my perspective, though, there's 2 very different types of roles religion fulfills....one is in your typical common person looking to be socially acceptable, and the other is in the truly out there, eccentric seeker. The former doesn't necessarily even want to really know what religion is -- they just want to fit into what's considered the in thing, and no I'm not trying to be derogatory, plenty of down to earth people like this are nice, well meaning people, and one can appreciate them for those things. The latter, yes, is probably going to be a seeker of the spiritual and so on any way you slice it.

So the question really is, why does the former "need" something like religion to fulfill their particular need? I think if anything a lot of those people are very SJ-ish people, authority and duty-seeking, and if there's anything that appeals to them about religious life/God, it's probably that there's a concept of a higher authority telling you how to live a respectable life.

I would imagine there's no need to spiritualize that higher authority figure and one could just as well make it a more human, less spirit-based ethical code, and leave the spirit-based stuff to the people I think who really can't do without it.
I actually don't tend to object to the more out there spiritual figures, because they know their message is out there, and they know they are out there, and they accept that. It is the turning of spiritual ideals into pragmaticist format that I tend to find becomes frustrating....sort of mass-manufacturing something that is a highly inner explorative path and turning it into a way of pragmatic life. A lot of these people, like I said, just go with it because it's the in thing, and don't really even know their own religions or ask the big questions about it.

Don't get me wrong, I fully think that *humanity as a whole* will probably not get rid of religion for a long time/forever perhaps because yes it fulfills a certain deeper need. It's highly psychological. I just don't think the common person really is following religion for such intensely introspective or meaning-seeking reasons, so a part of me thinks the role religion is playing in these people's lives could be fulfilled by something more benign. Yes like you say, it could be less benign too, but that's the whole point---it's kind of arbitrary what it is, and the only hope we have is to try to ensure that it's something reasonable.

I changed my mind about this. I thought some more about it and I came to a different conclusion. I advocate Christianity because it's simply an inextricable element of Western culture and it unites us all in common belief and experience. It is essential and irreplaceable. Any attempt at its complete removal is nothing more than an attempt at cultural suicide.

Also, I think religion will always be irrational. It takes on the task of answering questions beyond the reach of reason. It's to be expected.

 

[charlatan]

Well I would certainly not say I'm advocating the complete removal of religion at all -- after all, I think there's a large group of people who I suggested are probably naturally drawn to it, and I do believe it is best to allow people to pursue what (truly) is meaningful to them. However, I am certainly against the so-called mass-manufacturing, unreflected type of religious adherence....i.e. the stuff that's more a hallmark of wanting to fit into the established norms than genuine truth-seeking-based. If someone is for Christianity so much, and sees it as so important, I suggest then instilling the spirit of genuine truth-seeking in the masses, which is very sorely lacking.

On "unreasonable," I've always said in this thread that the idea of faith is highly related to Jung's concept of the "irrational" factor of cognition, namely that at a point one asks "why" and is unable to justify it, and has to accept something a priori.
And Jung has also written about various notions of God and how they fit into this paradigm.

I do agree with that, and agree whether or not it's reasonable it will have a place in the human psyche. However, over time, we have slowly and gradually made things much more dependent on reason (many of the greatest scientific thinkers of the age old seemed to rely on spiritual arguments for some of their claims), and I think this makes sense ultimately....I say explain all that can be explained, don't stop and allow irrationality in *until and when you are forced to acknowledge it* -- i.e. close to that point Jung suggested.

Incidentally there's at least a few prominent religious prophets who say the same -- they do assert reason will not get you a glimpse of the divine, but they still suggest to abandon it prematurely is foolish, and differentiates the enlightened from the superstitious.

 

[Pin]

Yeah, I think that religion is an incredible tool for building communities.